Developer control: The Part A success criteria only apply to the authoring tool user interface as it is provided by the developer. They do not apply to any subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. by plug-ins, user modifications, etc.).

User agent features:Web-based authoring tools may rely on user agent features (e.g. keyboard navigation, find functions, display preferences, undo features, etc.) to satisfy success criteria. If a conformance claim is made for a web-based authoring tool, the claim must cite the user agent.

Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g. documentation, search functions, etc.). The only exemption is for preview features,
as long as they meet the relevant success criteria in Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing-views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the functionality of user
agents that are actually in use by end users.

A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Information:

If an editing-view modifies the presentation to convey status information, then that status information can be programmatically determined. Status information conveyed by modifying the presentation of editing-views may include, but is not limited to, spelling, grammar and syntax errors. (Level A)

PRINCIPLE A.3: Editing-views must be operable

A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum):

All functionality of the authoring tool is operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes, except where the underlying function requires input that depends on the path of the user's movement and not just the endpoints. (Level A)

Note 1: The path exception relates to the underlying function, not the input technique. For example, if using handwriting to enter text, the input technique (handwriting) requires path-dependent input, but the underlying function (text input) does not. The path exception encompasses other input variables that are continuously sampled from pointing devices, including pressure, speed, and angle.

Note 2: This success criterion does not forbid and should not discourage providing mouse input or other input methods in addition to keyboard operation.

@Several

MS2010? AtutorLCMS? Sakai3.0?

Yes

No. Spell checker has some issues.

Yes

Yes

A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps:

(a) In the Authoring Tool User Interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using a keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard interface and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods, the user is advised of the method for moving focus away; and

(b) In Editing-Views that Render Content: If an editing-view renders content (e.g. WYSIWYG view), then a documented keyboard command is provided that moves the editing-view keyboard focus to a known location (e.g. the start of the editing-view).

A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum):

If the authoring tool includes authoring session time limits, then the authoring tool can be set to automatically save web content edits made using the authoring tool before the session time limits are reached. (Level A)

@At-least-one

ATutorLCMS (Scorm mode?)? DrupalCMS? MoodleLMS? Wikis?

N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application.

N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application.

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable:

If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A)

(a) Turn Off:Authors are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or

(b) Adjust: Authors are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or

(c) Extend: Authors are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g. "press the space bar"), and authors are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or

(d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g. a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or

(e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or

(f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.

@None-confirmed

ATutorLCMS (Scorm mode?)?

DrupalCMS?MoodleLMS? Wikis?

N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application.

N/A. Time session limits would be controlled by the higher level application.

A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure:

If editing-views expose the markupelements in the web content being edited, then the markup elements (e.g. source code, content renderings, etc.) are selectable and navigation mechanisms are provided to move the selection focus between elements. (Level AA)

@Several

Amaya? (JS)

Yes (using "Path" feature)

Yes (using "Path" feature)

Yes ("Edit>Select Parent Tag", "Edit>Select
Child")

A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships:

If editing-views allow editing of programmatic relationships within web content, then mechanisms are provided that support navigation between the related content. Depending on the web content technology and the nature of the authoring tool, relationships may include, but are not limited to, element nesting, headings, labeling, programmatic definitions, and ID relationships. (Level AAA)

PART B: Support the production of accessible content

Part B Conformance Applicability Notes:

Developer control: The Part B success criteria only apply to the authoring tool as it is provided by the developer. This does not include subsequent modifications by parties other than the authoring tool developer (e.g. by plug-ins, user-defined templates, user modifications of default settings, etc.).

Applicability after the end of an authoring session:Authoring tools are responsible for the accessibility of web content that they automatically generate after the end of an author's authoring session (see Success Criterion B.1.1.1). For example, if the developer changes the site-wide templates of a content management system, these would be required to meet the accessibility requirements for automatically-generated content. Authoring tools are not responsible for changes to the accessibility of content that the author has specified, whether it is author-generated or automatically-generated by another system that the author has specified (e.g. a third-party feed).

Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in any conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B (e.g. an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking tool).

Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features that must be present to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g. checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation, etc.).

Multiple author roles: Some authoring tools include multiple author roles, each with different views and content editing permissions (e.g. a content management system may separate the roles of designers, content authors, and quality assurers). In these cases, the Part B success criteria apply to the authoring tool as a whole, not to the view provided to any particular author role. Accessible content support features should be made available to any author role where it would be useful.

Yes. The "Paste from Word" feature prserves the alternatives even when the image cannot be preserved.

Yes (transformations from IEEE LOM to SCORM package etc.)

PRINCIPLE B.2: Authors must be supported in producing accessible content

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

Guideline B.2.1: Ensure accessible content production is possible.

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG):

If the authoring tool places restrictions on the web content that authors can specify, then those restrictions do not prevent WCAG 2.0 success criteria from being met. (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

B.2.3.2 Conditions on Automated Suggestions:

(a) Author Control:Authors have the opportunity to accept, modify, or reject the suggested text alternatives prior to insertion; and

(b) Relevant Sources: The suggested text alternatives are only derived from sources designed to fulfill the same purpose (e.g. suggesting the value of an image's "description" metadata field as a long description).

@At-least-one

A-Prompt 1.0

Yes. Meets by not making suggestions. Even when images are uploaded to the server for storage.

Guideline B.2.5: Assist authors with accessible pre-authored content.

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

na

B.2.5.1 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism:

If authors are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g. clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA)

(a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and

PRINCIPLE B.3: Authors must be supported in improving the accessibility of existing content

B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG):

If the authoring tool provides authors with the ability to add or modify web content so that a WCAG 2.0 success criterion can be violated, then accessibility checking for that success criterion is provided (e.g. an HTML authoring tool that inserts images should check for alternative text; a video authoring tool with the ability to edit text tracks should check for captions). (Level A to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A success criteria; Level AA to meet WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria; Level AAA to meet all WCAG 2.0 success criteria)

Note: Depending on the nature of the editing-view and the scope of the potential web content accessibility problem, identification might involve highlighting elements or renderings of elements, displaying line numbers, or providing instructions.